[MostlyStable]

This is exactly the kind of Motte-and-Bailey argument the commenter you are replying to is talking about. Sure, you can justify some of the regulations, much like you can justify not allowing a chemical plant next to a school, but there are, in many places, hundreds to thousands of such rules and the vast majority of them are _not_ that important. How does not wanting houses to flood relate to setbacks, minimum square footage, lot size, etc. requirements? Literally no one is saying "get rid of every single development regulation". So bringing up one of the _extremely_ small number of regulations that are worth having does not address the argument about the _hundreds_ that are not worth having.

[__egb__]

> …hundreds to thousands of such rules and the vast majority of them are _not_ that important.

And you base that on…?

> How does not wanting houses to flood relate to setbacks, minimum square footage, lot size, etc. requirements?

Here, minimum lot sizes are based on public/private water/sewer. We’re on well water so we need room for the well. We’re on public sewer, however, so we don’t need room for a septic tank.

As mentioned in other comments, minimum lot size also relates to infrastructure requirements. Here, it’s not as simple as just widening the current road or building another road through the narrow parts of our peninsula.

Setbacks are also related to stormwater management. Tree protection requirements, again, stormwater management and erosion control.

> Literally no one is saying "get rid of every single development regulation".

But you think that there are only an “_extremely_ small” number of valid regulations. You and the other comment I replied to seemed dismissive of specific rules that are vital to the survival—not just value, but physical survival—of my neighborhood.

[Empact]

Don’t the many zero setback cities invalidate your setback argument? They’re not drowning in stormwater - clearly it can be managed in a number of ways.

Why not admit to yourself that you just like exclusionary land use regulations, and are comfortable with the impacts on the cost of living, increased commutes, etc.?

It’s not your neighborhood under threat, it’s your status quo.

[__egb__]

> Don’t the many zero setback cities invalidate your setback argument? They’re not drowning in stormwater - clearly it can be managed in a number of ways.

This means nothing without knowing the specifics of the local geography and ecosystem.

> Why not admit to yourself that you just like exclusionary land use regulations, and are comfortable with the impacts on the cost of living, increased commutes, etc.?

I’m not denying that our current zoning is exclusionary. It absolutely is. It’s excluding developers who want to sweep through and enshittify the place for a quick profit without regard to long-term viability.

> It’s not your neighborhood under threat, it’s your status quo.

In our case, the status quo many of our rules are meant to protect is, “the peninsula still exists and remains accessible by land,” so it’s both.

[sd-response]

Curious, are you allowed to place an RV on your property, hook it up to your sewage system, and sublet it?

What about an ADU in your backyard? What about tearing down your house and build a triplex?

Or has your peninsula achieved the platonic ideal of density as it is now? If so, you must be very lucky to live in such a place.